N.V.: On Sunday. November, 27th a World Chess Cup in Khanty Mansiysk started. As the authors of this review, we will allow ourselves to say a few words about a specific character of this event, and give forecasts.

S.K.: When a few years ago I looked at the player's rating and saw the number around 2630-2640, I imagined a skilled professional about thirty years old with several team and personal titles who played in many tournaments in his life. And now many young players have such rating. So I have a strong wish to name the review like "The hymn of triumphant youth", following Alexei Bezgodov.

The triumphant young play "uncompromising chess" (sorry for stock phrases, it is the title of Alexander Beliavsky's collection of games), passes "the test of time" successfully (Garry Kasparov), he searches for "ways of self-improvement (Vladimir Zak)", calculating the variations for about 70 moves and more and being in search for non-standard positions everywhere where it is possible to find them.

To guard grandees against the killing pressure of the young, they were given a separate world championship (with only the first among the equals allowed to participate). Other warriors were sent to Khanty Mansiysk to find out who is stronger younger and more tough, and who deserves playing in one tournament with Topalov the Great and the Terrible.

But let us stop joking.

It is a very hard tournament with many mistakes, and struggle till disorientation in space.

Some participants play so that it is obvious: they did not have time to overcome jetlag having arrived on November, 25th. Some people went there after the Russian Cup, others after the hard struggle with chess machines (chess is the only kind of sport where a human can compete with computer), and it is obvious that for many or even the majority of players half-year preparation for the tournament in Botvinnik’s style was out of question. And so we see several unpredictable results in the very beginning, and many decisions unclear even to those who made them.

However, there are a lot of positive impressions as well.

N.V.: Apart from having a different name, this tournament, in contrast to previous knock-outs, is a qualifying competition: the top ten players qualify to the candidate matches which will determine four sports in the "tournament of the eight". But where are the semi-finalists and where are ordinary participants of the world forum? What is a KO-mundial like? Only chances, nothing is granted. It is the chance for average professionals to earn good money, the chance for the semi-forgotten highly skilled players to remind about themselves, the chance for young players to attract general attention. It all happens against the background of the widest geography (it cannot be wider), permanent nervous tension that does not decrease till the finish (every second game is played as the last round one), when even the favorites do not have granted places in the second round (we will see it). Chess often reminds of boxing in knock-out tournaments: two people just find out who is stronger and psychologically more stable and not who is better in chess. That is why we should thank those players who disregard utilitarianism and just present bright games and beautiful ideas against the background of this a bit foreign to regular chess tournaments atmosphere.

S.K. And talking about boxing, I came across a curious idea. Do you remember the time when everything that could have ended in a draw ended in a draw in the Smyslov-Hübner match, and the five against six game was not invented yet, so there was a drawing of lots in order to determine the winner of the candidates match!

So. Maybe we can introduce an extra round instead of roulette or blitz? A round of boxing, not chess!

Then it will really become a knock-out tournament, only the strongest will pass to the top, physical training of the sportsmen will improve, people of about 40 years of age will get their chances in the struggle with the young (weight category will play its role). And finally, chess will become more spectacular and will surely conquer a television.

Excuse me, I digressed.

N.V. We excuse you. I hope the spectators support me.

Here is the most interesting game of the round 1 from our point of view.

Headliner

E.Inarkiev (2577) – A.Khalifman (2653) B48

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 e6 5.¤c3 Јc7 6.Ґe3 ¤f6 7.f4 Ґb4 8.¤db5 Јa5 9.e5 ¤e4. Here is the history of this variation: this position occurred for the first time in the Beliavsky-Matulovic game, 1972: 9...a6 10.¤d6+ Ґxd6 11.Јxd6 ¤e4 12.Јd3 ¤xc3 13.bxc3 b5 14.Ґe2 Јc7 15.0–0 Ґb7 16.a4 ¤e7 17.axb5 axb5 18.¦xa8+ Ґxa8 19.Јxb5 ¤d5 20.Јc5 Јxc5 21.Ґxc5±. It is the game after which the move order chosen by Black started to be considered doubtful (S.K.: and A.G.Beliavsky wrote about it in his book).

10.Јd3 ¤xc3 11.bxc3 Ґe7 12.g3

12...a6?! As the clear majority of strong players, Alexander Valeryevich does not like his own bad pieces. In this case he does not like the good-for-nothing c8-bishop. Although the bishop develops now, dark squares become weak; maybe one should play for development (N.V.: I absolutely agree with you. Sometimes excessive care spoils the relationship with the object of worship): 12...0–0, for example: 13.Ґg2 f6 – it is hard to hold the pawn on e5, and after the exchange on f6 Black may play d7-d5, Ґc8-d7.

N.V.: I think Black has a good game. Alexander Genrihovich has to search for new ways to advantage.

13.¤d6+ Ґxd6 14.exd6 b5 15.Ґg2 Ґb7 16.0–0 Јa4. N.V.: It is a maneuver characteristic for the French defense. The queen attacks many important squares from a4, but in this certain case she suddenly becomes the object of attack.

17.Ґb6!

17...0–0. It is like in a well-known joke: he would like to exchange the bishops... he would like to, but he cannot: 17...¤d8 18.Ґxb7 ¤xb7 19.Јf3ќ; 17...¦c8!? 18.¦fb1 ¤d8 19.a3 Јc4 20.Јxc4 ¦xc4 21.a4!ѓ.

18.¦fb1 ¦ac8 19.a3± e5

20.¦e1? N.V. Is it the ability to admit the mistake? I cannot recognize it in a mask! S.K. one would still like to capture the queen that was given away (N.V. All White's previous play was aimed at capturing Black's queen. One had to be principled till the end): 20.Ґxc6 ¦xc6 21.¦b4 ¦xd6!! (21...e4 22.Јd2 ¦xb6 (22...Јxb4 23.cxb4 ¦xb6 24.Јd4 ¦c6 25.Јxe4 – we are left without our main pride in this position) 23.¦xa4 bxa4.

N.V. It is hard or even impossible to find a colossal 20.Ґd5!! at the board. And if one knows or even guesses its idea... 20...exf4 21.Ґxc6 ¦xc6 22.¦b4 ¦xb6 (22...¦xd6 23.Јxd6 Јxc2 24.¦e1 Јxc3 25.Ґf2 Јf3 26.Јxf8+ќ – it is the point! The e-file is opened!!!) 23.¦xa4 bxa4 24.gxf4±

N.V. The presence of the d6-pawn on the board is the doubtless advantage in comparison with immediate Ґc6. It will be hard for Black to defend.

N.V. Despite White's having extra pawns, it is hard to assess this position. Black's material losses are compensated by very strong bishop, White's bad king and his inability to bring a bulk of his pawns in motion.

28...Јc4 29.¦e1 ¦ce8 30.Јf2 Ґa8. One has to examine 30...Ґb7 in order to moe away from the attacked square, but here the queen will be deprived of b7 in some cases.

31.¦e7 Јc6 32.Јg3 ¦xe7 33.dxe7 ¦e8

34.¦a1!? N.V. It seems to be the method of contraries, right? Creative cooperation with Mark Izrailevich Dvoretsky reveals itself in the culminating point of the struggle. The move of an ordinary layman not acknowledged with scientific approach would not have led to the advantage – 34.ўf2 ўh8 (34...ўf7 35.Ґc5 Јe4; 34...Јe4? 35.Ґxf6 Јxc2+ 36.ўe3 Јc1+ 37.ўd4 Јd2+ 38.ўe5 Јe2+ 39.ўd6ќ) 35.¦a1 Јe4 36.¦e1 Јxc2+ 37.ўg1 Јxf5›, and the position is played for all possible results. S.K.: I remember White just having several pawns more in the analogous position. It is a trifle, but still looks unpleasant.

Alexander Valeryevich decided to give the exchange away on e7. N.V.: From here and till the end the events go on forcedly. One can do nothing but envy the calculating skills of the players...

S.K.: I agree, and it is just outstanding on some damn hour. Maybe, one has to try playing for a win with the material present: 39...Јb6+ (I make checks, put the queen on e6, then the bishop on e4, if White defends on g6 by h4-h5, I attack and capture on h5. If he moves g6-g7, I put the bishop on f7 and try to free the rook for attacking the king. It seems to work not that bad) 40.ўe2 (40.Јd4 Јe6 41.Јf4 Ґe4) 40...Јe6+ 41.ўd2 Јd5+ (41...Ґe4 42.Јxh6ќ) 42.ўc1 (42.Јd4 Јg2+) 42...Јh5 43.g7 Ґd5 44.c4 Ґf7

In the attempts to do something in the opening White found a very beautiful idea.

12.¤h4! ¤b6. It seems one tries to trap the queen. 13.¤xf5 ¤xc4? Black follows the code of honor of the 19th century: when the opponent sacrifices something, then the sacrifice should be accepted in order to find the refutation of the daring idea. 13...Јxf5 14.Јc3 ¦ac8 15.e4І and White cannot be deprived of the spatial advantage, 13...exf5 (in the manner of the Czech defense) 14.Јc2І would have been stronger.

14.¤xe7+ ўh8 15.¤xc4 Јc7 16.Ґa3. White got three pieces for a queen, and usually such an equivalent is more than enough. Black's material "shortage" is partially compensated by the lagging e7-knight.

17.¤xc6 bxc6 18.Ґxf8. Here White had a forcing quiet move 18.¤e5! ¤d7 (18...¦g8 19.Ґd6!ќ) 19.Ґxf8 ¤xe5 20.Ґa3 ¤d7 21.¦ac1±, and White could get two bishops and not a bishop and a knight.

18...¦xf8 19.¦fc1±

One can easily sum up the non-standard exchange operation. White has a rook and a bishop for a queen, and the second pawn is about to be captured. Black cannot create a counterplay. As a matter of fact, this is a technical position. White confidently proceeded to the victory (1-0).

S.Karjakin (2658) – C.Balogh (2567) B61

S.K. Courageous Csaba Balogh caused one of the main sensations of the first round. Not in this game, but in the whole match.

N.V. Really, Balogh's courage is beyond any doubt. Here is another underlying basis of this match: one excellentt chess player born in 1987 stands against such a young opponent with higher rating, ambitions, fame, that one willy-nilly begins to root for... Everyone has to choose.

S.K. Once when I annotated a game for Chess Petersburg magazine, I wrote about such a sacrifice, "It is better to play with a pawn than without it", and another author of the article enjoys reminding me about that :-). I would like to repeat it once more. Seriously speaking, one must have strong nerves to sacrifice like that in such a competition. I do not want to quote previous games concerning this topic, in the majority of them White blundered his extra pawn in several moves. Future world champion (I will follow the co-author:-)) plays next several moves in the exemplary way.

N.V. Sergey, classics should know their pearls! "Why should one give his pawn away if it is possible not to"– that is the way it sounds. Your co-author just expressed in an artistic way the words of the lord of white pieces that the presence of his portrait in the gallery of chess kings is inevitable (uh, it sounded artistic!)

And Black is winning! Having calculated something like this, one may really give everything up and think about proceeding to the endgame. But then, excurse me, one should not have allowed the rook to go to f3 – see White's 25th move.

27...Јa6 28.Јxa6 ¦xa6 29.c3±. N.V. The endgame is bad for Balogh in every bit – the rook is poorly placed on а6, he lacks material, White has a passed pawn.

1.e4 d6 2.d4 ¤f6 3.¤c3 e5. S.K. This variation is unpleasant for White – you either play 4.¤f3 and allow Black to proceed to a good variation of the Philidor defense, or take on e5 and d8 in a principled way and play the endgame, where you have yet to prove the advantage.

4.dxe5. N.V. It is a very strange decision. Judging by the game, Pavel did not have anything prepared. And it is not clear why one should put the queens off the board that early.

Of course, I also thought over the possibility to put the knight on d5 and leave it there using the fact that the e6-bishop has nowhere to move. And still, having calculated everything, I decided that Black has enough time to play f7-f6 and develop, and I did not want to move the knight once more. Pavel had a different opinion.

19...¦e8 20.b3! b6 21.¦fd2 g6 22.c4. Do not believe Fritz that will tell you how nice White stands after 22.¤f4 – Black just plays 22...ўc7 and moves the rook forward.

S.K. This is the position White aimed at. And yet, with the bishop on g2, I do not think that there are reasons to count on a win. Nevertheless, with his inherent energy Pavel searches for and find the chances.

N.V. My opinion is even stricter – I think Black has at least equal chances. The glimmering ray of hope is mainly explained by nervous play of his opponent.

30...ўc7 31.ўc3 ўd6 32.ўd4 g5 33.b4 b5. S.K. It is better not to weaken the c5-square (N.V. Why should one weaken it if it is possible not to?). Maybe, one should play 33...h5 ?

9.Ґd3 0–0 10.Јc2 b6. N.V. Why cannot one play in a simple way? 10...c5!? S.K. Let the simple people play like that.

11.Ґg5 h6 12.h4!?

N.V. In combination with the subsequent move it is a rather attractive but rare idea. S.K. Sergey Shipov gives an interesting comment to this move on ChessPro: "The h1-rook stamps". Well! Actually, it seems that the 12.h4 move did not lead to the victory.

It is an inaccuracy. The centralization of the queen is very strong and was just necessary – 16...Јd5!? For example, 17.Јh6 (17.Ґxf8 Јe4+ 18.Јe3 (S.K. It seems that 18.ўf1 ўxf8 19.¤e1 allows to capture the third pawn immediately. Here Black will have to avoid the endgame and try to mate :-)) 18...Ґxf8›) 17...Јe4+ 18.ўf1 Јh7 19.Ґxf8 ¦xf8 20.Јxh7+ ўxh7„

20...¦h8. No win for White is seen after 20...Ґe4!? 21.¦h5+ ўg8 22.Јh6 f6 23.f3 Ґf5 24.g4 Јd6 with a perpetual check.

21.Јxd3+ f5 22.Јg3 ўh6 23.¦g6+ ўh5 24.¦g5+ ўh6 25.¦g7 1–0

A.Khalifman (2653) – E.Inarkiev (2577) E99

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 g6 3.¤c3 Ґg7 4.e4 d6 5.¤f3 0–0 6.Ґe2 e5 7.0–0 ¤c6 8.d5 ¤e7 9.¤e1 ¤d7 10.Ґe3 f5 11.f3 f4 12.Ґf2 g5 13.¦c1 a6. As far as one can judge from Megabase, this continuation was invented in 1999 . Inarkiev already used it against Bluvshtein in the Aeroflot open 2004. At cost of time loss and weakening of b6, Black avoids an unpleasant variation 13...¤g6 14.c5 ¤xc5 15.b4 and he is forced to play 15...¤a6, placing the knight on the edge of the board and killing his own attack, as 15...¤d7 is met by 16.¤b5 – 13...a6 prevents exactly this move.

14.¤d3

14...b6!? A new idea. Black, including Inarkiev himself, played only 14...¦f6 before.

15.b4 ¦f6 16.c5 ¦h6. In 1952 David Bronstein moved his rook here as well. It happened before Miguel Najdorf's finding the maneuver ¤g6, ¤f6, ¦f7, Ґf8, h5 and g4. In this case the text move is more or less forced, as Black must keep the knight on d7 in view of the weakness on b6, and without the knight's help one by no means can play g4.

17.¤a4. Khalifman chose a different plan in the rapid game – 17.cxd6 cxd6 18.g4 fxg3 19.hxg3 ¤g6 20.ўg2 ¤f6 21.¦h1 ¦xh1 22.Јxh1 Ґd7. N.V. And I think it becomes clear now that White did not achieve any special advantage. Overall, the King's Indian defense was very well tested in this match. 23.b5 axb5 24.¤b4 g4 25.¤c6 Јf8 26.¦c2 h5 27.Јd1 Ґh6 28.¤xb5 h4 – however, we will tell about the events of this game in the next part of our review.

21.¤ac5. It worth reading through Khalifman's selected games to realize he doesn't hesitate to make a positional sacrifice. After cautious 21.¤ab2 it is not clear what White is going to do on the queenside; the same is with Black, though :-).

21...dxc5 22.bxc5

White plans to play d6, c6, give a check from b3, then maybe bring the knight via b4 to d5. Inarkiev exchanges the most active enemy piece, although it is connected with returning part of the loot after c6.

22...¦b7 23.¦xb7 Ґxb7 24.a4

N.V. Despite a good look of White's sacrifice, he has no advantage. Although Black also has no attack.

25.axb5 axb5 26.c6 Ґxc6. Worse 26...¤xc6 27.dxc6 Ґxc6 28.¤b4 – threatening to take on c6 and ¤d4. The knight from c6 will at least be able to move to d4, just like in the game.

27.dxc6 ¤xc6 28.Јb3 Јb8

29.¤b4. It turns out not the best idea; one probably had to bring the rook into play: 29.¦c1!?; 29.¦b1!? ¦d6 (29...b4 30.¤xb4=) 30.Јxb5=. White clearly saw it; it is possible that he just decided to play for win in a time scramble.

23.¦d3 ¤e5 (23...¤f8 24.Ґxh7+ ўxh7 25.Јf6 ўg8 26.¦g3+ ¤g6 27.¦xg6+=) N.V. From now on the players open the sequence of the only possible moves played with computer precision, which in turn makes it easier for the annotators. S.K. It also recalls about the chip allegedly implanted into Veselin the Terrible's head.

24.Јd2 ¤g6. S.K. For a win one should try 24...ўg7. The idea is that it is not easy for White to transfer the rook along the third rank, as Black takes on d6 and after the check from h6 escapes to f6. 25.¦h3 (25.¦d1 ¤g6 26.¦h3? ¦xd6) 25...Јxd6 26.¦xh7+ ўf6.

S.К. The position reminds one of the games of Fischer – Taimanov match. Fischer also got the bishop pair for the e4-oawn there. N.V. This position does not bring any associations to me. White is better, period.

17...¦d7 18.f4 exf4 19.Ґxf4 ўc7 20.¦hf1

20...g6 21.Ґg3 Ґg7 22.Ґxf7 Ґe5 23.Ґxe5. S.K. It is difficult to choose between exchanging the bishop and 23.Ґe1 ¦f8 24.Ґc4 ¦xf1 25.Ґxf1 d5 – White looses some of its strategic achievements but keeps the bishop pair. N.V. My choice is keeping the bishop – it leads to less demanding play.

23...¤xe5 24.Ґb3 ¦dd8 25.¦f6 ¦hf8

26.¦dxd6? S.К. A very courageous move – White allows the opponent to capture on h4, while White's benefit is far from being easy to spot. N.V. Looks like a mistake. 26.¦df1!? … 26...¤d7 27.¦f7І.

41...¦e1?? S.К. Only here Black slips; however, watching this game live with great interest, we also failed to notice quickly that 41...ўc8 leads to a draw: 42.c6 (42.¦g8+ ўb7 43.¦g7+=) 42...ўb8 43.c7+ ўb7 44.¦g8 ¦c1 45.¦b8+ ўa7 46.¦h8 ўb7.

42.c6 ¦e8 43.¦a7 1–0

Theory

N.V. Knock out tournaments usually do not yield many opening revelation – the participants are afraid to allow long principled continuation, as every win or loss is extremely valuable. Also in our case, only three games out of 128 deserve very close attention: the Anti-Moscow gambit in Izoria ­­– Erenburg, and two Najdorfs.

S.К. The previous year I also commented on a similar competition, and the situation with openings was similar, although the particular variations were little different. For instance, I remember the Acs – Movsesian fight in the Chebanenko variation of the Slav. In the Najdorf White stubbornly tested the variation with e3 and 0-0-0, but there were indeed very few revelations. As Garry Kasparov noted once, chess players tend to abandon the openings with long forced variations: a single hole in the preparation – and you will be unable to fight back.

The following game was of some theoretical interest.

Z.Izoria (2646) – S.Erenburg (2582) D43

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.¤f3 ¤f6 4.¤c3 e6 5.Ґg5 h6 6.Ґh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Ґg3 b5. A highly topical position of the Anti-Moscow gambit. Going into such a position in the second game of a KO-event requires a great self-confidence or, more precisely, a confidence in one's own analyses.

9.Ґe2 Ґb7 10.0–0 ¤bd7 11.¤e5 Ґg7 12.¤xd7 ¤xd7 13.Ґd6

This position occurred three times in 2005.

13...a6N. A novelty. Previously Black tried other approaches.

13...e5. The game will come to this position with insertion of moves а6 – а4. So why Zviad did not repeat the idea that already occurred in his game? The reader will see the answer below.

14.Ґg4!! A very strong response. The Georgian player apparently shows his home analysis. It is very difficult to come up with a decent reply as Black. 14.d5 leads to quieter play: 14...¤b6 15.dxc6 Ґxc6 16.a4 bxa4 17.¤xa4 ¤c8 18.Ґc5 Јxd1 19.¦fxd1 Ґf8 20.Ґe3 (S.K.: it is of course a peaceful play, but it looks like Black ends up resting in this peace) 20...Ґb4 21.Ґxc4 0–0 22.f3 ¦b8 23.¤c5 ¤b6 24.Ґe2 ¦bd8 25.¤d3 Ґb5 26.¦xa7± Radjabov – Dreev, St. Louis 2005.

14.a4. Not being satisfied with the results of the opening, Izoria went for 14.e5 c5 15.Ґh5 in the first rapid game (15.d5!? would lead to more open positions: 15...¤xe5 16.dxe6 g4!? – Black has to use his imagination (and it is clear why – the problem can't be solved by simple and sensible means: 16...fxe6? 17.Ґh5+ ¤f7 18.¦e1 Јd7 19.Ґg4 ¤d8 20.¤e4!±) 17.¦e1 (17.Ґxg4?! ¤d3„) 17...f5 18.Ґf1 ¤g6 (18...¤d3 19.Ґxd3 Јxd6 20.Ґxf5 Јxd1 21.¦axd1±, and a passed pawn on е6 ensures White's material gains) 19.Ґxc4!±

N.V. Black is bored to death, although the bright side of it is that he is not going to lose material quickly. So, I don't understand why Zviad rejected 15.d5.) 15...Ґf8 16.d5 White decides to open the position, but the effect of it is less significant now. 16...Ґxd6 17.Ґxf7+! ўxf7 18.dxe6+ ўg7 19.Јxd6 ¤f8 20.e7!? (Regaining a piece is bad: 20.Јxd8? ¦xd8 21.e7 ¦e8 22.exf8Ј+ ¦hxf8µ) 20...Јxd6 21.exd6 ¤d7 22.f4 g4 23.¦ae1

N.V. White acted very sensibly in this ending – he arrived to e6 with his knight. And Black parted with the b7-bishop for some reason, got a hopeless position, but the game ended in a draw in the most comical way. Well, one has to note that this endgame is probably just better for Black. And if you compare it with the position after the opening, Black stands simply fantastic.

14...e5 15.d5. Following the game Izoria – Riazantsev did not work out well. 15.Ґg4 exd4 16.e5 c5! The point! The b7-bishop joins the play, and White can't take on b5 with a piece. 17.Ґf3 (17.e6 ¤e5µ; 17.axb5 ¤xe5µ) 17...Ґxf3 18.Јxf3 ¤xe5 19.Јd5›

I will leave studying the resulting complications to Zviad's lab and other Anti-Moscow fans. S.К.: Although Fritz and I are not the greatest Anti-Moscow fans, let us proceed: 19...dxc3 20.¦fe1 ¦a7 (20...Јc8 21.¦xe5+ Ґxe5 22.Јxe5+ ўd7 23.Ґxc5ќ; 20...¦c8 21.¦xe5+ Ґxe5 22.¦e1±) 21.¦xe5+ Ґxe5 22.Јxe5+ ўd7 23.Јxc5‚ – the king looks way too naked. Of course, it does not mean much, as Black probably had other moves – but at least we saw that the attack should not be underestimated.

15...c5. The bishop remains in vacuum for some time. 16.b4

16...cxb4. 16...Јb6 17.bxc5 ¤xc5 18.Ґxc5 Јxc5 19.axb5 axb5 20.¦xa8+ Ґxa8 21.Јa1 0–0 22.Јa5, and now Black faces some problems. S.К.: one could say it harsher – there is a danger of losing both queenside pawns.

17.Ґxb4 a5 18.Ґd6 b4 19.¤b5 ¦c8

20.Ґxc4 (S.К.: a nice sac) 20...¦xc4 21.¦c1 ¦xc1 22.Јxc1. White has a full compensation for a piece, but he can't claim any advantage.

N.V. This bishops on b5 somehow reminds me the famous a7-bishop in the Karpov's game. However, unlike his colleague, our bishop will enter the struggle a couple of moves before it ends. 21...¤h5 22.Јc4 f5 23.c3 ¦ab8 24.b4

White's idea was interesting and spectacular, but it hardly yielded in a serious advantage – in my opinion the position is even.

29.Ґc5 (29.¦d3 Јe2).

Н.В. Whtie's position has a lot of advantages: he has more pieces, the bishop pair, and even some extra pawns, however, there are almost no winning chances. (S.К. And he must win after the first game loss.))

29...¦b8. There was a possibility to exchange the dark-squared bishops. (N.V. And I think it was smart to use it). 29...Ґe3+ 30.Ґxe3 Јxe3+ 31.ўh1, which is usually good for Black in similar situations. Maybe he though that the exchange adds value to the passed pawn? 31...¦f2 – and White has to place his pieces passively in order to defend everything: 32.Ґa4 (32.¦ac1 Јe4; 32.c4 Јe4) 32...Јe4 33.Ґb3+ ўf8µ.

19...Ґe7. Black clearly counted on 19...¤xd5, but it is met by 20.a4 ¤xe3 21.axb5 ¤xd1 22.bxa6±

One has to consider 19...¦xd5 20.Ґg5, and now the computer suggests a slightly inhuman 20...¦g8, in order to attack on g2 after exchanging on f6 – 21.¦xd5 (21.g3) 21...¤xd5 22.¦d1 h6 23.¦xd5 (23.Ґh4 ¤f4 24.¤xd6+ Ґxd6 25.¦xd6 f6›) 23...hxg5 24.¤xd6+ Ґxd6 25.¦xd6±

20.¦d3

20...e4. Black miscalculates; it was necessary to play 20...¦xd5 21.¦xc3 (21.¦hd1 ¦xd3 22.¦xd3 0–0) 21...0–0 22.a4 ¦c8, and although the rook is placed rather awkwardly, it is unclear who will be catching it.